Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 23352 (JHR)

MD. ABID ANSARI v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./7729/2026 · 2026-08-18

Anubha Rawat Choudhary

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:24769 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 7729 of 2026 Md. Abid Ansari, aged about 28 years, son of Jalil Ansari @ Md. Abdul Jalil Ansari, resident of Rahmat Nagar, P.O. and P.S. Balumath, District Latehar (Jharkhand) … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- 03/18.08.2026 Learned counsel for the petitioner is present. 2. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State Mr. Azeemuddin, APP, is also present. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Balumath P.S. Case No.30 of 2026, registered under Sections 333, 65(1), 62, 76 and 109 (1) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act, now pending in the court of learned (I/C) Special Judge, POCSO, Latehar. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he is in custody since 07.03.2026. Charge sheet has been submitted under Sections 333, 64(1), 62 and 76 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 and cognizance has been taken on 14.05.2026. 5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that he trespassed into the house of the victim, attempted to commit rape upon her, assaulted her by strangulation, bitten her, tore her clothes and outraged her modesty by touching her private parts. 6. Learned counsel for the State also submits that it has been mentioned in the impugned order itself that the victim has supported the allegation even in her statement under Section 183 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 7. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the direct and specific allegation made against the 2026:JHHC:24769 2 petitioner in the FIR, which has been lodged by the victim herself, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, this bail application is rejected. 8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:18.08.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:20.08.2026